If I may be permitted to be subjective for a moment and speak of the predicted Canadian elections, I would just like to echo many of the sentiments of my colleagues in saying that decorum is lacking in the current House affairs. That is, debates over bills, current issues, etc has all been reduced to nitpicking and petty insults that do not seek to further the cause at hand. Each party believes itself justified and only one has showed any remote interest in accommodating the demands of another juxtaposed party. Where is the wit in the insults on the floor? The art of the disguised and honourable reproach not the banal gutterals of a bulldog? Where is the respect for equals, the respect for the ability to argue tactfully, the respect for not selling principles cheaply to leap ahead? (Michael Chong comes to mind).
I’m also afraid I have committed a blunder on the campus scale. I must reinforce the following philosophy: One must never decide one’s vote for a political candidate based on their personal life, but always vote based on their platform and principles. The counterargument has been made that a tarnished social life may indeed affect the integrity of office if such a person is elected. This may be true in some cases, but for the most part, I have only to think of John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Sarah Palin to think of examples where sex and pregnancy scandals should not affect the viability of their candidacy and strength of their platform. Pride comes before a fall and people love the fall as much as the rise of their greatest heroes. Enemies are always made.
Another point: Can a person do the right thing and still have poor intentions? For instance, the bloodthirsty soldier who fights in a just war. If his intent is unjust, are his actions then deemed unjust if they are done in self-defence or on behalf of the defence of his country? For as long as he does not kill beyond his mandate, everyone will laud him for doing the right thing, is that not so?